Subscribe by RSS
From the WaPo:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch military action or initiate a war, vowing instead to battle efforts he said are undermining the individual liberties of people in America.
In an interview with Washingtonpost.com’s PostTalk program, the Texas congressman said he could see “no reason” to justify military action if he were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.”
See, this is what I can’t understand about Ron Paul. Does he consider the 9/11 attacks an actual “attack” on this nation or just some jokers hi-jacking airplanes for fun.
Seriously, I am not as confident as Ron Paul that America cannot be attacked. A few good submarines yes, but are we supposed to wait for an attack? I think Ron Paul is rather naive on terrorism. But then, Ron Paul is the only real Republican:
“I feel like I’m sticking up for the Republican principles,” he said. “I’ve chastised the other candidates on the stage. You don’t represent the Republican base…. The Republican party is in shambles. We lost desperately. You won’t change your ways.”
Who knows… Probably the same way Dennis Kucinich is the only real Democrat.
That being said, cue the Ron Paul supporters with responses.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
Ron Paul’s argument is that our current military adventurism is counter-productive because we are inciting more and more people to hate us, killing our brave young men and women, weakening our military, and bankrupting ourselves.
You ask the question: Should we just wait for another attack? No, there is clearly much that can be done at home (eg securing the borders) but when what we do abroad makes the situation worse, then yes, inaction abroad is preferable.
Actually, yes. The 9/11 attacks were an organized act of mayhem by a bunch of thugs mostly from Saudi Arabia (when do we go to war with THEM??).
Dr. Paul did authorize military force in Afghanistan in order to find Al-Qaeda and bring them to justice for the 9/11 attacks. But, we failed. It’s my hope that Giuliani never gets it right and keeps pounding his 9/11 war-drum like he was the only one there. The more he says it, the dumber he sounds to a lot of people, and Ron Paul emerges as the only one with rationale and common (well, maybe not common enough) sense.
America faces graver threats from illegal immigration killing its economy and lowering wages. America faces a graver threat from lost ingenuity and creativity of its citizens. America faces a graver threat from civil liberties being taken away. 19 Saudi’s needs a response which may include:
Supporting alternate energy 100% so that every American can be energy independent and not rely on the state
Supporting a competing currency backed by gold so the erodiing Fed based system doesnt draw every American down with them
Supporing bringing all troops home from around the world to contribute in the USA rather than sucking money up to defend other sovereign nations.
Good comments. It’s so true that these ‘wars’ are weakening our national defense. If someone wanted to harm the US they would greatly benefit from having the bulk of our armed forces abroad (where they are slowly poisoned and their personal lives destroyed, or killed) and the homeland left much less defended. I can’t believe that folks actually think Giuliani or Romney are strong on defense when they can’t see the gushing wound that is our current paranoid foreign policy.